CES 2014: Hands-on with Kodak's M43 Pixpro S-1 and 'Smart Lenses'

CES 2014: Hands-on with Kodak's M43 Pixpro S-1 and 'Smart Lenses'

What's in a name? Among the cameras launched at this year's CES were a handful from Kodak - one of the most recognizable names in the photography industry, albeit one whose name doesn't quite mean what it used to.

Technically, Kodak doesn't actually make cameras anymore, but JK Imaging, a worldwide licensee for Kodak 'Pixpro' digital cameras and lenses does. JK doesn't have a booth at the show, but we visited them in a hotel suite for a briefing and some hands-on time with the new S-1 Micro Four Thirds camera, and the company's two new 'Smart Lens' camera modules.

Anything over wifi and mobile is gonna suck. I feel cellular carriers do strange things with firmware for wifi to throttle it and make it drop packets so that people use more wireless data. Until this practice stops, this setup will always be clunky. They should jack into the usb directly with a builtin USB OTG cable.

It'll be amazimg if the bsi sensor is true. The rx10 has quite good 3200 iso pictures. So does the pentax q7. With a micro 4/3s if it can produce decent 6400 iso pics cos of the sensor, this would truly be a game changer. It'll also accelerate development of bsi sensors in larger formats. Really exciting times indeed.

Hmm... I thought JK Imaging's gameplan was to focus (no pun intended) on the Chinese market, where Kodak is still a well known brand (and an American brand at that), and there is a lot of anti Japanese sentiment? The idea being to hoodwink the Chinese public into believing they are buying an "American" camera and none of that nasty Japanese stuff, when in reality they are selling either a modified Japanese camera made side by side in the same factory that said Japanese company uses, or a Chinese knockoff of something that was a Japanese idea in the first place.

I don't think that the Chinese photo consumer is so unsophisticated as you would imply. Also, the cultural as opposed to marketplace sentiments are for the large part unfounded; the most desirable jeans in Iran are genuine Levis brand. If they are made in the USA (few are actually) they are even more highly prized. Go figure.

Too bad Kodak can't have a decent funeral with a stately graveside ceremony... it was a great American company that passed into history (it's photographic div. at least). No, instead we have to deal with this zombie "Walking Dead" creature that looks a bit like our dear friend, but isn't. Will someone please put a round through its decaying brain... or maybe a bolt from Darrel's crossbow?

Hell yes. Mass production of high quality camera kit can only be good for the consumer. A lot of comments are quite positive and I know why, price. Who doesn't want to pick up a bargain M4/3 body? The quality will always be in the lenses bodies come and go. M4/3 needs to give away bodies for free or as close to it, that way people will experiment and buy lenses.

I really like the film emulation idea too. And would be way cool if final assembly was in the USA. I can see the Chrysler-like ad: "Imported from Rochester". Needs to have Ektar-quality lenses though to really make it work.

it has nothing to do with "100% realistic" or not. please don't mess up processing and defective. color film's problem was failure of control (not the users and not even the film designers)while post processing is opposite.

yabokkie: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "failure of control"; film via differing film stocks and push/pull processing (film development) lends a good amount of control - greatest latitude being b/w, particularly coupled with enlarger techniques. And I agree that this creative, aesthetic decision making was not related to "defect".

I actually like the camera body design and nice lens bodies of this camera better than the Nikon 1 J series (I know Nikon 1 is not m43 but it is competing with it to a degree in mirrorless) and also like the tilt screen of this new camera. If the sensor and image quality is good enough, and reasonable price, this could get interesting with JK Imaging /Kodak entering m43 arena of cameras out there or ILC in general.

The kit lens of S1 shows Aspheric ED Lens at 12-45mm. After using the collapsible lens of Oly, I stopped using it, and prefer the non-collapsible in other m43 lenses on my EPL. So these lenses I like. I would use primes for short lenses over collapsible ones.

If they are using a sony sensor I doubt the image quality will be any worse , at least in raw. Focus speed, buffer speed, interface, build quality and the like are where it would likely show it's price.

I'm curious about the 800mm telescope lens - might pick one up for birding with my GX7 if it has decent image quality at an attractive price.

Those smart lenses need some kind of easily-removable square framing so you can set them on a table, etc. and take remote pics without having to handhold and try to level them. Even better would be a built-in electronic level that would take a level picture regardless of how the cylindrical lens is tilted (come to think of it, that would be a nice option in many regular cameras!).

Kodak digital died. It's too late. This is a group of investors using their name in hopes to make money. There should be no emotional attachment to the name Kodak because it's not the Kodak you grew up with.

Every licensed product is money for the current commercial and packaging printing company that is Kodak today.

Being different management and smaller company focused on cameras could make better kodak cameras then Kodak made. Kodak's purchase of Chinon didn't help them in the long run; though by volume it helped between 2000-2010 point and shoot market.

While I have my doubts about this particular camera being useful for me, I think JK Imaging has a good direction overall. This will be a nice inexpensive step up camera for people who are ready to transition to more "serious" cameras and who don't have a lot of confidence in their ability to know how to select one. (Lots of people like that). It can only help 4/3s in general.

I might be personally interested in a slightly different configuration though.

Looks like a Pentax Q (which is a good thing), with a tilting screen (which a lot of people want), m43 sensor (which is another good thing) with a very usable and attractive FL. JK is doing everything right for their first try! Hopefully they would sort out the FW and this could be a good seller, competition is always good for consumers.

They are working on the right focal length, size and styling. Nice try on putting a 400mm telescope on m4/3 to grab attention (but does it really has to be that long?) Every other things, however, require much testing and verification.

Well, they do say it's a teleSCOPE lens (as in Refracting Telescope) and not a Telephoto lens. Refracting Telescopes have just 2 glass elements, one at each end, and their 'focal length" is pretty much their physical length.

I would not be surprised if this lens is totally manual focus and maybe even fixed aperture (it is a modified telescope after all). In which case, you're probably better off with that Tokina Catadioptric lens.

Am I the only one genuinely interested in the lenses? The 12-45mm is definitely more interesting than the plethora of 14-42mm lens options on the m43 system. The 42.5-160mm also looks nice and compact.

Why not just get the Oly 12-50 then? SOme copies are very good (I have one) and they are cheap as chips on Ebay.Focus is VERY snappy and it's weather sealed to boot...just don't see what the Kodak has over it

To really penetrate the market, a more reasonable zoom (28-60) with good IQ, not too much noise until ISO 1600 and a 1/4000th shutter speed would be needed.Those extreme zooms will be perceived as gadgets very quickly

No, I think this lens is perfect for this camera. It covers the most useful focal lengths without swapping. Starting wider is a very good thing that is starting to become common (probably because of Sony's compact 16-50mm kit lens) The slowness at the long end is a bit of a worry, but I guess I'd rather have the extra length, even if it is slow. The telezoom also looks rather nice. I wonder who is making the lenses for them (unlikely they're doing it themselves) because they don't closely resemble any existing MFT lenses. My guess is Olympus, which would be a good thing for both companies. But it could be almost anyone.

We're still trying to verify that. There are a couple of slightly confusing data-points in the press releases, including a mention of 'optical sensor-shift image stabilization' which don't exactly make sense and make us a little circumspect....

I sometime buy what you say "made by China" products and find they are of same good quality if not better. actually people from some big brands have hard time to tell difference between genuine and fake products.

it's really case by case just like camera brands which is used to confuse people.

Don't make too much fun of China, they are slowly surpassing other international markets in many fields. The once had only low price, today there are tons of quality made by china product that surpass much higher priced western options. I suppose many here have sime treasured old soviet glass in the bag... your sons will have china ones, and they will be great!

How does this work? The quality of cameras relates to the money spent on the presentation is that it? So if you cannot afford a fancy booth at CES the product must be rubbish. It does show that throwing money at marketing is effective I suppose if people are so shallow and dismissive of a new market entrant before they have really started.

My comment was tongue-in-cheek, but let's not fool ourselves here. This isn't "Kodak".

And as far as being "shallow and dismissive of a new market entrant before they have really started". Well, if these people were serious about the business they'd be creating a 'brand', not rehashing an old brand with a generic reverse-engineered product.

What makes you think it's reverse-engineered? JK Imaging are members of the MFT consortium, so they have access to the mount specifications, lens protocols etc. It was Olympus, who announced that JK had joined about a year ago.

If it's reverse engineered, it was done in record time. No, I don't think that happened. What more likely is they heard such a product was being developed and decided to build a competitor. That's a long ways from reverse engineering.

What's more likely is that it was reverse engineered. Designing a competing product from scratch for a company with obviously limited resources would be nothing short of a miracle in such a small time frame.

The same nameless crappy Chinese company that makes just about every rebranded piece of junk on the market today. I doubt JKI even had a hand in the design. They probably open a catalog and pick from a number of generic designs. Slap a Kodak brand on it and there you go.

Maybe DPR will do a first impressions review when they get a production unit in. Never know what quality will turn out to have. Thanks for the first look. It looks quite a bit larger than a Q, though. Maybe that flash tilts back for bounce?

Why not? This has always been the case. Look at cameras (and other stuff) from any era. Look at the film SLRs. Look at the film compact cameras. Look at all the old folding cameras. All are heavily borrowing from each other.

@Roland KarlssonI'm finding your "nothing wrong being copy cat" statement appalling.It tells me that you've never been a victim to piracy of your intellectual property.To me, market evolves not by copying each other inventions. It evolves because of new, unique inventions.

@Richard Franciec.Have you been a victim of piracy? Your belief that products evolve without evolution and just spring out of thin air is almost as dumb as fundamental religious types spouting off about creationism.

I'm going to assume this will come in around the $499 mark with kit lens. But then the question is, why by this off brand camera vs say a Fuji X-A1 that will most likely yield better IQ and looks better to boot?

Yes - the price level is somewhat high for a totally unknown camera maker. On the other hand - they probably have high initial costs and cannot give away their stuff. That is a dilemma when starting a new company.

If you go on the JK Imaging Kodak site (just google it and go to Press Room bottom of page for 2nd top post Jan. 7) the price with kit lens in their press release is $499. and with a 2 lens kit is $599. Not too expensive for m43 if quality is there in lenses and the sensor, and lenses are Aspherical ED which is marked on the kit.

Would like to see later reviews on AF speed and accuracy, and sample images posted. The sensor at 16MP cmos BSI in press release looks very promising. Definitely targeted after a mid range consumer m43 camera like EPL5 or Pan G6 for example (where body is around the same price range). Regardless, to me the camera looks very interesting with its appearance and if the mount is the same will hopefully take other m43 lenses as well, in case some us want to use our existing ones or third party and thinking of this body.

I don't agree, $499 is too much for what is essentially a cut down E-PL5 (it may have gained WiFi over E-PL5, but it's supposed to be slow to operate, meaning they've cost cut on the processors driving the UI, and the screen doesn't seem to be the touchscreen you get on the Oly).

If the processor is slower and the image quality in its jpeg engine not as good as Olympus, I would then go with an EPL5. Would like to see reviews after some people actually test the camera. Until then, I will keep an open mind. The camera might actually be fine for consumer use. Maybe not for us more advanced enthusiasts. We will see though when it comes out. Maybe it will be good enough.

I could see these doing well in Walmart, Target, Staples, or Radioshack. There is a place for cheap off-brand, products like this. And, in many places around the world, American nameplates are still well regarded; e.g. Buick is considered a luxury brand in China.

To all negative posters: Just judge the product in accordance to its target market, not if the company's new start isnt luxurious enough. Nikon is 80 yrs in the market, so what, you don t want to support new entries to the market?? Its sick if so. Otherwise pay the "price" of oligopoly or monopoly. I support new efforts and i understand new doesnt have the back up powers of old, so what. Update your level and dont feel secure just supporting an estabished brand, but understanding what a new brand entrie means

There is a place for these level of cameras in these super stores. I bought myself a 'Thomson' tablet from Target at a good price & it works well. When I want something better I will then look at better known brands & this is likely what will happen here by bringing a cheaper introduction of M4/3's to the general public, they will then become aware of Olympus & Panasonic as (or if) they want more & better.

Yabokkie, no one is cheating anyone. F number is a ratio between FL and Aperture size, its no absolute. Who are they Cheating against...FF?? if by that resoning then FF is cheating against Medium Format, and MF is cheating against Larger Formats...

yabookie has a point. An F8 lens on a large format camera is a quite fast lens as the aperture (in mm) is quite large. The same also works in reverse. A F1.4 lens on a Pentax Q is in practice a very slow lens. as the aperture (in mm) is very small.

In practice this means that a 25 mm F2.0 lens on m43 is equivalent to a 50 mm F4.0 on a 35 mm FF camera, with regard to collected photons and DOF and diffraction.

Personally I would not call it a conspiracy though, but rather a fact of physics. But, I assume marketing is not slow to claim that this new F1.4 is very fast, when it in practice is equivalent to a F2.0 lens for APS-C.

This has been discussed for ages on DPR though. And some will go on claiming that F2.8 is always F2.8 and determines how fast the lens is - even though the fastest lenses we have on this planet (giant telescopes) might be F64.

As we all know is the F number just the ratio betwenn focal length an the diameter of the aperture. If we talk about "fast" it is related to the shutter speed. This works based on F numbers regardless of the real aperture diameter. F x.y results in the same shutter speed independent of the sensor size assuming the same ISO values. There is no cheating in saying it is fast no matter how small the sensor is.

@roland I do believe lenses with apertures that are relatively large compared to the focal length of the lens are called fast lenses because they allow fast shutter speeds. In that sense a f/64 would not be considered fast.

Exactly, F2.0 is always F2.0, if we're talking exposure. Total light gathering (and hence, noise), DoF and diffraction are other matters entirely. But nobody is cheating; when stating that a lens has a certain F-stop, you're only making a claim about the FL/aperture ratio. No claims are made regarding image quality or DoF. If you expect an F2.0 lens on m4/3 to give identical results as an F2.0 lens on FF, then it's because you have limited technical knowledge, not because someone cheated you.

Here we go again. You did not read my post. You just answered automatically. Hint - it is the diameter of the aperture (in mm) that lets in photons. So - sure F2.0 is always F2.0, but as the sensor is bigger it is hit by more photons. Therefore you can use a higher ISO and therefore the system is faster.

Roland, what you say might seem to make sense, but you are just assuming that other people are ignorant. Aperture and diameter are different things, that is why they have different names. Why should you assume that who buy an f1.4 lens for m4/3 expect it to catch as many photons as a f1.4 lens for an Hasselblad? Also is the Hasselblad faster? No, because this is photography and if you use the word "fast" it has a precise meaning.

f/2 is f/2, that's exactly correct ... but only out of the context of photography. (focal length, f-number, ISO, none of them is photographic concept)

about cheating, I'm not saying JK is meant to cheat (they may and they may not). so sorry about that and I may explain it in detail elsewhere related to Oly or Pana products, probably 42.5/1.2.

> it is the diameter of the aperture (in mm) that lets in photons

at a certain (solid) angle of view.

that's why we need larger aperture sizes for tele lenses. half the solid angle will have to be compensated by double the aperture area (which is where f-number comes from, as an approximation using focal length instead of angle of view).

I understand what you mean, but I don't get the point. A 10K$ camera makes better pictures than a 500$ one at the same aperture? Ok, no pulizer material. Pana/Oly is lying when call a 1.4 lens fast? Well I suppose they should write in the PR "this is our new 1.4 lens, good enought to compete with with the best 2.0 lenses for APS cameras"?

The quality of a lense is not determined by what is it compared to another sensor size. There are several characteristics depending on the sensor size. But a F2.0 m4/3 lense is fast as is whatever format F 2.0 lense. No one is lying here.

Whenever you raise the photons keep in mind that you need more photons to illuminate a bigger sensor. There is nothing spectacular about saying you get x-times more photons since you need them.